New York definitely has a Salt Water license.Florida has one as well.If you fish with a guide or on a charter boat the license is included.Fees go to law enforcement, and hatcheries for reds and snook,etc.

Posted on: 2010/2/15 9:09

_________________
bragging may not bring happiness,but no man having caught a large fish goes home through an alley. a non a mus

Yeah, the tide is against us, and we're stuck trying to protect what we have. It's gonna get worse but its not a lost cause, there's already a fair bit of public water. Our options, as I see it, are as follows:

1. Obtain more public land. Pick your own organization for wherever you feel is best. Conservatories, the PFBC, the PGC, watershed associations, etc. I think TU needs to pick up the mantle too, but thus far they've been a periphery player. Make it a state forest, national forest, state park, SGL, PFBC land, whatever, its public and access is protected. Fight fire with fire, by buying land. Leasing is an alternative as well. A public institution leasing to retain access to property that is not for sale, and the collective cost is much less than joining a private club to lease the land. However, you may find yourself in a bidding war for eternity.

Capitalism says they have the right to buy and lease land. But so do we. The bigger the pool of people the less $ per person. "The public" is a pretty large pool of people. Most are willing to pay a few extra bucks for a license, and a fair number would be willing to donate money if they understood exactly what the money was being used for.

2. The legal front. LJ mentioned pollution protections, such as not allowing clubs to stock and/or feed fish in the water. That would lessen the attractiveness for creating a club on water that must be stocked, but not so much for water the club intends to remain a wild fishery. I also think there's plenty of fighting room in navigability laws. For medium and large streams, I hold that history (both in fact and legislative history) has shown a large number of them to be navigable, and thus open to the public below the high water mark or whatever. Unfortunately most of them have not been tested by the courts in recent history. It'd turn into a messy stream by stream court battle. We've already fought a couple of them and won every single one that I'm aware of. I think there's room for a whole lot more. We need to not only win the cases, but sue the pants off landowners for all lost business and recreational opportunities due to their illegal posting. This might make it lucrative for lawyers, essentially allowing the wrongful landowner to pay the legal bills and not us. Fight back, on most larger streams the law is on our side!!!

I've heard the argument that fighting this would cause more landowners to post. It's a good argument, and probably true in the short term. But there will come a point when there's more to be gained than lost by fighting. And when that time comes, it'd be much better if half the battles were already fought.

Some group needs to spend some library time and create a "list" of streams that have a history of navigation, with evidence. And then they need to make it clear to the public and the landowners exactly what the law says about these streams. I'm willing to be part of such a research group, but I'd need a lot of help.....

im not totally disagreeing with you. But taking the legal front would open a lot of streams not doubt. But sue the landowners? I maybe get that for a fishing club such as the SRC but what about private land owners with just posted land?

I would not want someone to lose their house and push their family onto the street in the name of ...fishing. Especially when they were doing a legal thing all these years.

The Tully is Nav. stream. The Union Canal is up in its headwaters. If someone pushed the issue the entire wild trout stretch i fish would be open to the public. That is a long stretch too the "fish hatchery" could not do a thing about it. HOWEVER, i caution in such actions. As it sits now there is open water that the wild trout migrate down to. Its an amazing little fishery but bait fisherman do fish it hard from the opposite bank. The fact the upper nursery waters are posted insure that legal size trout are in the stream at all times. One good rain and you have more fish in your section. This might be an exception as this stream is very fertile and has a ridiculous head count of trout. Either way, the fishing club restored the stream and protect the nursery waters, even if out of greed.

What we have now is a small short stretch of an excellent stream, on postedland that you must ask to get access.

Maybe that helps the trouts

NOTE: That is just one example on one stream. Certainly i donnot feel this way about most streams.

I looked for the access fund, whatever it was/is called on the PFBC website and could not find it. Has the program been eliminated, or is it buried somewhere in the site? I suggest it be displayed front and center on the site. Further, making it an option for donating each year when you buy your fishing license (similar to the check the presidential election fund on our tax forms). You should be able to donate any amount each year when you buy your license, either on-line or at an issuing agent.

The fact that "baitfishermen fish it from the opposite bank" is the division that festus talked about. They are not enemies, access would help them too, and their support would help us. The Tully is a perfect example, no doubt its navigable.

I don't disagree that posting, in certain situations, can help fishing on unposted land. But thats not the correct approach. The correct approach is to open the water, as the law says, and then attack any fishery problems with fisheries management.

In 5 minutes of searching, I found "public highway" declarations for Spring Creek, Penns Creek, Pine Creek, Kettle Creek, the Loyalsock, Chartiers Creek, 2 different Yellow Creeks, Tionesta Creek, Oil Creek, Sinnemahoning, Bennett's branch of the Sinnemahoning, Sandy Lick Creek, Stoney Creek, Bald Eagle Creek, and Black Moshannon Creek. I can only imagine how many more there are out there. A declaration of public highway does not mean the courts will conclude its navigable, they are determining whether it actually was used for navigation. But a declaration of public highway probably means that it was used for navigation.

I meant nothing by my statement but the truth. The other side of the bank is a neighborhood with houses having their grass abut the stream. Thats how they get access, im not saying they dont have the right to be there. I think you thought i meant more by that. The only fly-fisherman i see are the ones we brought there.

In the past few years i have been a major advocate of public access and putting these stupid grinds away. We need everyones help or we could lose just about everything.

afishinado wrote:I looked for the access fund, whatever it was/is called on the PFBC website and could not find it. Has the program been eliminated, or is it buried somewhere in the site? I suggest it be displayed front and center on the site. Further, making it an option for donating each year when you buy your fishing license (similar to the check the presidential election fund on our tax forms). You should be able to donate any amount each year when you buy your license, either on-line or at an issuing agent.

I think that kind of fizzled out. It was a general access fund, so included boat ramps etc. Most people will not donate serious money unless they know how it is going to be used.

If anyone out there has significant money they would be willing to donate to conserve a trout stream and provide access, probably the best bet would be to work with a local conservancy.

For example there is a conservancy who has bought land that Valley Creek flows through. Those stream corridor lands are now protected from damaging developments and public access is assured.

I agree with that. Im not going to say its a bad idea to donate to the PFBC, but they use those funds statewide. If you wish to get something more local to fish..........go with a local organization.Being in TU and working on streams is only possible if you live close to where you get access.

Conservation AcquisitionPartnership ProgramThe Conservation Acquisition Partnership Program,known simply as CAP, was created by thePennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission to solicitand accept donations to be used solely to obtain additionalaccess to Pennsylvania's waters. As populationcenters expand, more and more waterfront landis lost forever to development, and Pennsylvania'ssportsmen and women find that they have fewerand fewer places in which to pursue their favoritepastime. CAP was created to help to stem that tide.How? By taking money donated by those whoreally care about the future of the sport of fishing andtheir children's and grandchildren's and greatgrandchildren's access to it. Then making that moneywork harder than it ever could by itself. Every dollardonated to the CAP will be matched with a dollarfrom the Fish and Boat Commission. But it doesn'tstop there. These combined funds will be used to attractother partners -- conservancy, corporations orothers, and ultimately be used as matching funds forfederally supported acquisition projects. In fact, yourdonated dollar could potentially turn in $8 or moreof buying power!However, the success of the CAP Program is dependenton the generosity of people like you. That'sbecause it takes that first donation -- yours -- to startthe ball rolling. No amount is too small, and certainly,none is too big. The future starts tomorrow, butyou can only influence it by what you do today!

It really makes sense to donate to this fund since each dollar donated is matched and multiplied as highlighted above. Perhaps to make it more relevant to each angler, the fund can be broken up by region (NW/SW/NC/SC/NE/SE)???

Perfect. Advertise it! It's not much good buried "somewhere" in the site and not advertised outside the site. Make a link on the front page. Put fliers up at every access point. Mention it when interviewed for magazines or newspapers.

I actually don't hasve a problem with ORvis promoting their "Resorts." The owners pay big money toebcome an Orvis resort or camp or whatever they call them. Orvis should promote them. But Fly-fishing magazines promoting them is another issue. Especially when they mix an ADVERIZEMENT in as a magazine article. And actually over the last 10-12 years this is the way the media is operating. Don't expect that to change any time soon.

The thing that can be done, and should be done is for PFBC to start making some agreements with some of these types of places and open them to the general public. They should have a stream access fund for just this type of thing. To help support the program they could charge a minimal fee for fishing for the day, this way they raise funds and control how many anglers are on the water.

The key is it is controlled. We wouldn't have to go crazy with it but on a prime waterand location I think a rational way to acquire access permanently.

Posted on: 2010/2/15 15:36

_________________
The object of a resource is to use and reuse a resource, not to use it up, have we learned nothing in over 125 years of stocking?

The key is it is controlled. We wouldn't have to go crazy with it but on a prime waterand location I think a rational way to acquire access permanently.

Chaz,

I think what you said here makes some sense. Its not possible nor wanted for all PA waters. Sure would be nice to have a tract of Warriors Mark Run , Spruce (bigger than what we do have), Cedar Run, Elk and many others. No reason that the BEST pa has to offer needs to be ALL posted.